Healthy Markup -
RE: "Please split hairs now on the difference between "good for her" and "she'll lose more in the long run.""

Quite simple – when I said "she'll lose more" it was clearly in reference to losing more jobs. How many jobs are lost in the long run may or may not have anything to do with some theoretical person's preferences. I'm not sure what the conflict is.

Michael Smith -
RE: "This is typical of your posts — it begins with and rests upon an unsupported assertion. Why is the situation with manufacturing employment a “crises”? What is your definition of a “crises”? You don’t explain or show — you merely assert."

Yes – if you ONLY quote that one section it looks like I'm just asserting something. But I specifically said manufacturing is losing a large amount of jobs. Insofar as that can be considered a crisis, it's a crisis.

RE: "When, and in what fields of employment, has there ever been a time of “no prospect” of loss of employment to competition? Under what conditions is anyone entitled to view their jobs as completely “safe” from competition?"

I apologize for the mistake. What I should have written was "there was much lower probability of job loss from competition". And I would say that under no condition is anyone entitled to view their job as safe from competition… it doesn't make it any harder when they lose it. Are these really the points you're quibbling over, Michael? The point is, there's been a lot of job loss and that's hard for people to cope with, but that's not an argument for protectionism. That's all I'm asserting. Is that really such a frustrating point to accept?

Re: "Since — judging from your other comments in other threads — your definition of a “moderate” is anyone who advocates anything less than the immediate imposition of a Stalin-style totalitarian dictatorship,"

??????????

dg lesvic -
RE: "If you're going to blame the free market, you have to explain how it could NOT tend toward equilibrium."

The market is "to blame" insofar as job loss happens in the market. The fact that it's a crisis for those who lose their jobs doesn't mean the market is bad. The cause is the market and international trade. The solution is to keep trading, and in some situations it may be appropriate to help the unemployed make the transition. I'm not sure why you have to prove that it doesn't tend towards equilibrium. Market equilibria will lose some jobs for some people. That's just life. The market is to blame, but the solution isn't to close the market.

RE: "That's the crux of the issue, the forest that seems to have been lost for the trees."

Not by me. The only person here who seems to be railing against free trade is muirgeo. I'm just saying that I sympathize with the unemployed – that's all.

I_am_a_lead_pencil -
RE: "I apologize for the shift in focus from "trade generally" to labor dislocation due to technology. A similar concern for lost jobs and a lack of economic education permeate both."

It's nothing to apologize for. Although some jobs in specific sectors have been lost due to competition, the bulk of job loss in manufacturing (as I understand it) is attributable to technological change. So it's another myth that needs to be addressed. Although there is somewhat of a "job crisis" in manufacturing – not a whole lot of it is due to trade.

"…losing your job is a very hard and disruptive experience, and most of these people entered these careers when there was no prospect of losing them to competition. I think we can be concerned about them without abandoning trade, though."

I'm curious – what does being "concerned about them" suggest that you will (or should) do?

"She may save some cashier jobs today by rejecting this kind of change, but she'll lose more in the long run as a result."

It is for this reason that I would argue that economic education is vital for humanity to thrive to the fullest extent possible. If this acquaintance of mine, rather than picketing the local grocer, spent her time aiding a specific laid off individual, she would likely do far more good. But (nod to Russ) she can do whatever she wants.

I apologize for the shift in focus from "trade generally" to labor dislocation due to technology. A similar concern for lost jobs and a lack of economic education permeate both.

"The point is, it's a job crisis, not a production crisis."

We certainly do have a job crisis.

So, what is the cause and cure?

Was the cause too little interference with the free market, and, the cure, more interference with it?

Or was the cause too much interferrence, and, the cure, less, or even none?

If you're going to blame the free market, you have to explain how it could NOT tend toward equilibrium.

That's the crux of the issue, the forest that seems to have been lost for the trees.

Whatever your faults, you're the most challenging, and valuable, commenter here.

Now, won't you just shut up for a while!?

We do have a manufacturing crisis in this country – but people should just take care to note that it it's not a production crisis, or a productivity crisis, or a value crisis – it's a jobs crisis……

We do have a manufacturing crisis in this country…..

This is typical of your posts — it begins with and rests upon an unsupported assertion. Why is the situation with manufacturing employment a “crises”? What is your definition of a “crises”? You don’t explain or show — you merely assert.

I also not what you don’t mention — namely, that if the loss of employment is due, as you claim, to improved productivity, then it means either: 1) higher wages for the remaining workers, and/or: 2) Higher profits for the owners of the businesses, and/or: 3) Lower prices for the consumers that purchase the goods now produced at higher productivity. In all three cases, someone’s purchasing power has increased, which means greater business for other enterprises thereby increasing their employment. Is this gain in employment elsewhere to be ignored so that you may declare a “crises”?

You also wrote:

Because losing your job is a very hard and disruptive experience, and most of these people entered these careers when there was no prospect of losing them to competition.

Again, this is simply an unsupported assertion. What is the evidence that the people who’ve lost manufacturing jobs “entered these careers” when there was “no prospect” of losing them to competition? When, and in what fields of employment, has there ever been a time of “no prospect” of loss of employment to competition? Under what conditions is anyone entitled to view their jobs as completely “safe” from competition?

If you work at a government-imposed monopoly — like the Post Office — then one might have grounds for claiming that there was “no prospect” of loss of employment to competition — until someone comes along and invents e-mail. But in a free market (or even in a non-free, highly regulated market like we have), I can see few situations when one could legitimately claim a right to view a “career” as having “no prospect” of loss to competition.

You also wrote:

I think we can be concerned about them without abandoning trade, though.

I'm the type of moderate that you need J

As a rule, your type of “concern” usually means advocating the use of government force to extort benefits from some to transfer to these unemployed — or the use of government force to limit, prohibit, constrain or otherwise make impossible the sort of competition and/or productivity gains that caused the job loss — or some other force-based government intervention, regulation, controls, etc.

Since — judging from your other comments in other threads — your definition of a “moderate” is anyone who advocates anything less than the immediate imposition of a Stalin-style totalitarian dictatorship, what do you advocate with respect to manufacturing employment in the U.S. — this alleged “crises” you’ve declared — what do you want done, beyond merely expressing your concern?

Note the italics.

"But some people – maybe the friend of the cashier – might be outraged and start shopping at a small local grocer as a result rather than the big chain grocers. If she prefers shopping there, it's good for her and it's certainly not bad for the local grocer either."

Same topic…

"We can't fall into the Luddite trap of being afraid of technological growth. She may save some cashier jobs today by rejecting this kind of change, but she'll lose more in the long run as a result."

Please split hairs now on the difference between "good for her" and "she'll lose more in the long run."

Posted by: Daniel Kuehn | Apr 21, 2009 6:14:04 AM"

LOL.

The "moderate" condition that now applies is that approximately 80% of any comments to posts by the owners of the Cafe, are from Daniel. Definitely a "moderate" performance. Oh how moderate!

The "moderate" performance is that Daniel has his own take on every single thing that is written by every single person who comments, and will run anyone around the mulberry bush until they sicken or tire of the game. How moderate!

The "moderate" Daniel even knows more about economics than two top professors at one of the top universities for economics. How moderate!

Yep, definitely a moderate. Is the radical leftwing now dropping the attempted label "progressive", which everyone knew was a lie, and turning to "moderate" as their cover label? People know that is a lie as well, you know, Daniel?

No one who is as prolific in nit picking output as you, Daniel, could ever get away with calling himself a moderate. It is laughable.

On the other side of the process – as parts become commodities than the real revenue stream moves up the chain to those who make the machines that make the parts. The faster and more consistent those machine are the higher their value and thus their price. The manufacturers who are thriving in this market are those who create the machines that make the parts that others assemble into products. Seems to me this is classical economics at work.

Because losing your job is a very hard and disruptive experience, and most of these people entered these careers when there was no prospect of losing them to competition. I think we can be concerned about them without abandoning trade, though.

dg lesvic -
Re: "When his empty words fail him, he calls in the math. When that fails, he simply slips from one topic and one thread to another."

First, I don't see any math here. Second, threads go dead and move on. I usually don't give up on an earlier thread – if I wake up or come to work and check and nothing has happened I move on. If you're attributing that to a reaction that I'm having to some point you've made, you're mistaken. And I've never minded you bringing up old stuff (maybe other people do, but I don't) – I'm just not going to scroll down the blogroll and continue to check ten different threads.

JMD -
RE: "God I hope it is true, but we were told a while back how production in the States was down.

. . . and this is a recession – recessions do as recessions do."

When were we told that? These numbers are very easy to find – you don't have to trust MSNBC. Production AND employment numbers in manufacturing… as well as wages, health benefits, unionization rates, etc. are all very accessible. The recession is a good point – industrial production and capacity utilization of dropped significantly since the start of the recession – but the point is that relative to other countries we're still producing much more.

Crusader:
Re: "Daniel is the type of liberal that we need on this blog"

Type of moderate… I'm the type of moderate that you need

Healthy Markup -
RE: "These cashiers' jobs are being lost to equipment that's almost undoubtedly of "non-local" manufacture, so isn't she hurting her "local" economy if she continues to buy from this robotic grocery?"

Wow! You caught me! No, I'd have to disagree. Any localism I've promoted is a voluntary kind, and I've only said that I ever commit to that on a few products that I get particular utility from supporting the local producers. So I don't think this is a conclusion I'm obligated to draw. But some people – maybe the friend of the cashier – might be outraged and start shopping at a small local grocer as a result rather than the big chain grocers. If she prefers shopping there, it's good for her and it's certainly not bad for the local grocer either. While I probably wouldn't be moved to change my consumption I'm certainly not going to argue that that won't help the local economy (although since both the large and small grocers are local, it probably wouldn't change much of anything, unless the small grocer had higher local content).

When you go to blog-commenter's heaven (many years from now) this will be on your gravestone:

My attack upon him was not an ad hominem, but an ad weaselem.

A better comment on your contributions I doubt I would be able to find.

Revealed preference anyone?

"I think we need some balance on these questions. We can't fall into the Luddite trap of being afraid of technological growth. She may save some cashier jobs today by rejecting this kind of change, but she'll lose more in the long run as a result."

AND

"You seem to be making the case that the "total welfare" of Florida will not be helped by these schemes. I would disagree – if they're engaging in this activity voluntarily, it shouldn't hurt their welfare at all. If people start to find value in trading with those who live close to them, then that is valuable to them – who are you to challenge that?"

These cashiers' jobs are being lost to equipment that's almost undoubtedly of "non-local" manufacture, so isn't she hurting her "local" economy if she continues to buy from this robotic grocery? Other groceries will just follow its lead and outsource more "local" cashiers' jobs to foreign robots.

Ask Daniel.

He knows what I mean.

God I hope it is true, but we were told a while back how production in the States was down.

. . . and this is a recession – recessions do as recessions do.

Just to remind you of a previous comment of mine, about Daniel, but directed especially to you. I don't recall the exact words, but it was something like this:

Notice Daniel's pattern.

When his empty words fail him, he calls in the math. When that fails, he simply slips from one topic and one thread to another.

And, if you chase him from the one to the other, you're accused of being "off-topic," as though endless evasion was alright, but ever actually pinning him down to anything was an intolerable imposition.

Futhermore, my attack upon Daniel was not an ad hominem, but an ad weaselem.